About the reviewer

Review

John Grant provides his readers with an account of
the relationship between dialectics and politics by taking the reader on a
journey from Hegel’s early accounts of dialectics through the political
writings of many prominent Marxists of the 20th and 21st
centuries. Grant argues that Marxists and other critics of capitalism have
continued in Hegel’s dialectical tradition, so that now in the 21st
century, a post-Marxist account of politics has arisen in light of a number of
factors. These factors, particularly the rise of environmental and economic
concerns, provide Grant with the background he needs to advance his case. Some
of his claims, however, are far too rushed and brief to be entirely persuasive,
and many of his claims are not firmly supported in this rather slim text. In
the end, despite these concerns, Grant does succeed in showing a logical
progression from Hegel to today, and it is his final chapters that make up for
any deficiencies in the early ones.

In the Introduction, Grant makes the claim that this
progression from Hegel to post-Marxism can be seen in the election of Barack
Obama as president of the United States of America. This claim is a curious one,
especially since many of the criticisms leveled against the Bush administration
dealing with foreign policy, can also be aimed at the Obama administration in
regards to assassinations of US citizens and American action in Libya. Grant, seeing
a Hegelian progression of history in contemporary politics, argues that we live
in a post-Marxist age, but one that still needs forms of Marxist critique and
dialectic if we are to break free from many of our contemporary political
problems.

Beginning his book with Hegel, Grant starts this
journey through dialectic with the father of modern dialectics. His account of
Hegel is one that I found to be one of his most well presented in the book.
Grant certainly has a firm grasp of Hegel’s philosophy, and the impact that he
has had on successive philosophers. The chapter on Hegel could easily stand on
its own as an introductory essay to the importance of Hegel and dialectics in
general, so much so that this chapter and the final chapter are Grant’s
strongest and most clearly articulated in the book. Hegel, for Grant, stands as
foundation of a dialectical political philosophy, and because of this he
remains the exemplar for all those who wish to engage in the process of
dialectic. Hegel’s methodology finds its practical application in Marxist
philosophy, specifically in Marxist political theory, and so Grant contends, it
remains a viable alternative to the political systems of the past 150 years.

Grant’s accounts of the impact of Althusser, Adorno,
and Lefebvre provide the reader with a condensed overview of these thinkers and
their impact on political thought. In these chapters, Grant provides good
overviews of these men, but because of the compressed format, the reader feels
rushed and may not be able to really appreciate the influence that these
thinkers have had on political theory. These chapters are the reason I argue
that the book is too short for what Grant is trying to do. Attempting to fit
semi-detailed introductions on thinkers as complex as Althusser, Adorno, and
Lefebvre into the middle of this short book, Grant is not able to argue successfully
that there is a clear progression of dialectics from Hegel to the present; not
because there is no case to be made, but because he does not have enough space
to work with in arguing his case. Perhaps if the book had been lengthier Grant
would have developed stronger arguments for his claims. Now, despite these
criticisms, Grant does, in the end, succeed in showing the progression and
development of dialectics from early Marxists to the post-Marxist age of
politics in which we are now enveloped.

By the time Grant reaches the final chapter of the
book, he has already provided a concise, if somewhat rushed overview of Marxist
political thought, but it is in these late chapters that Grant truly shines. He
argues that due to the fact that we are experiencing economic, environmental,
and political turmoil, it is time to turn once more to a politics of dialectics
to see if these challenges can be resolved.

While it may have helped Grant’s case to have lengthened
this slim tome, since as currently constructed it could use a bit more space to
justify a dialectical Marxist program for political philosophy, he does succeed
in showing how a dialectical politics can be of help in an age where economic
and environmental disaster are at the forefront of our political discourse. Grant’s
account of these thinkers, especially the account of Hegel, serves as a
reminder that despite his early claim that the election of president Obama is
an exemplary case of this dialectical progression, we still have many great
thinkers worthy of study to whom we can turn when we encounter political
crises. In the end, Grant has done a great service to the political discourse,
by reminding us all of the tradition of a dialectical politics.

29 August 2012

Comments

John Grant
wrote, on
4 Sep 2012 at 5:04pm:

I'd like to thank Joseph Spencer for taking the time to review my book. Much of what Joseph writes is accurate and hopefully helpful for the readership of the Marx and Philosophy website. I will point out though, that at no point do I argue that President Obama's election victory in 2008 signals the ongoing progression of a Hegelian dialectic that culminates in a post-Marxist setting. Such an argument would violate the finite and non-teleological characteristics that definte dialectical thought (and history) in my account. What I do claim is that "there are glimpses of the master-slave dynamic" in the relationship between Obama and the Tea Party. The current state of America, as Joseph points out, merits scarce praise, and falls entirely short of the ideal polity that Hegel (and certainty Marx) imagined.

Joseph Spencer
wrote, on
6 Sep 2012 at 8:20pm:

Thank you John for your kind comments. It was an honor to be able to review your fascinating book. I also wish to thank you for your clarification regarding your comments on the election of Barack Obama; your explanation does clear up the apparent misconceptions I brought up in the review.